The Workshop phase for this case is closed.

Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need this page to be edited, please go to the talk page and create a request in a new section.

WP:YASUKEWP:YASUKE

Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerks: SilverLocust (talk) & HouseBlaster (talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (talk) & Primefac (talk) & Aoidh (talk)

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Example

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 2

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of Gitz´s "War on Journalistic Sources"

Comment by Arbitrators:

With regards to AGEMATTERS: what sort of clarification would you be looking for? From my read of that section it seems fairly straight-forward advice. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Gitz´s description of the edit war is lacking in mainly two points. The first is that the sources are better described as replaced than simply removed. In most, by not all instances a new source was added, or there was already an adequate amount of sources. The second overlooked factor, it that there was a lot of discussion going on the talk page and that the CNN article specifically was criticized by multiple editors. At the same time, I adjusted my stance regarding the other sources in response to discussion. The diffs shared by Gitz also show that the amount of news sources cited in the lead increased considerably after I criticized their use. This reached its peak when Gitz added even more sources as part of the bundle. Before Gitz added the bundle he asked for approval from other editors, the response was unanimously negative.

I mainly haven’t removed the Japanese language sources because I don’t know Japanese. However, they have been challenged. The Yahoo News article is written by a historian and is more relevant to the samurai issue than CNN and was challenged on the Talk Page. Intojapanwaraku-com is no longer used as a source in the article. I recently replaced some Japanese language references after Gitz pointed out WP:NONENG to me. It is possible that was one of them. Contentwise, the article doesn’t appear to be that much different than the English news sources, however it goes into more detail and is based off of Lockley´s Japanese language book, which is more academic Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably important to note that the CNN article was not used to support the claim that Yasuke was a samurai, but for other claims, mostly the claim that Yasuke had servants. The claim has two inline citations both in the lead in the body. Personally, I believe that Yasuke had servants. He received a large amount of copper coins and a house. He could afford at least someone to cook and clean. However, CNN gives the wrong primary source. When Gitz brought up the idea of additional citations for the controversial claim about Yasuke being a samurai, I still thought that four was too much. However, it wasn’t worth fighting about. I started to replace the news sources with better sources. I accidentally replaced the wrong citation.[[1]] I had found another book that I planned to add later, but the bundle was created.

@Aquillion Neither Symphony Regalia nor Gitz think that the Britannica article is poor quality nor (I believe) that it is worse. Gitz has put it in his citation bundle marked academic at the top. I should note that at one point Kaneko´s book was replaced with CNN Travel.[[2]] I have also never come to the conclusion that Yasuke was not a samurai. The evidence that you link, is evidence of me not taking a position. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion's argument is based entirely on a superficial application of the rules where reliability is determined by the presence of a source on WP:RSP and sources being secondary or tertiary is determined by the nature of the publications they appear in. This argument completely ignores the existence of WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:PSTS and WP:AGEMATTERS. Just as a twitter post can be considered a primary, secondary, tertiary or unreliable source depending on who and what is said, sources reliability can't be determined without properly exploring the context that surrounds it.

In this case, the Britannica article was written in the last months by a subject matter expert with editorial oversight by the Britannica staff making it unquestionably a secondary source despite being from an encyclopedia while the news sources are interviews or based on works by that same subject matter expert written between 2019 and 2023 and falling closer to tertiary due to failing on multiple points of WP:SECONDARY, mostly by never relying directly on primary sources for their material.

On this matter, I'd like the arbitrators to clarify the importance of WP:AGEMATTERS when determining sources reliability on historical subjects, particularly when all those sources rely on the same expert or their work, and unblurring or reaffirming the differences between secondary and tertiary sources as best they can in the WP:PSTS rule. Yvan Part (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: On WP:AGEMATTERS, in essence, we have multiple RS based on the works of one subject matter expert. That subject matter expert writes a new RS that is mostly similar but with a potentially controversial opinion on a few key points. Should this new RS supersede all previous sources that were based on that expert? Should those previous sources be counted/considered to determine WP:WEIGHT and whether that new, slightly different opinion is WP:FRINGE or not? Yvan Part (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like the arbitrators to consider making WP:HISTRS a policy as this could have helped in solving this particular dispute. Yvan Part (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Elinruby's the policy states that English-language sources are preferred when they are available and of equal quality. It's not so much a question of WP:NONENG as of WP:PRIMARY. An example may clarify the issue. Some editors thought CNN was an unreliable source because (among other things) it uncritically accepted Lockley's statement that Nobunaga gave Yasuke "servants". They checked the Japanese primary source and found no mention of servants. See diff 177. So our article now says Yasuke was also granted servants according to Thomas Lockley. Is this good editing? I'm not sure. It may well be that historians understand that the notion of being given a house in the 16th century implies being given servants as well - it's not as if you could find domestic help on the labour market, and a house was a system of social relationships rather than four walls. Moreover CNN, like many other sources, states that Nobunaga gave Yasuke a sword. Editors wondered for a long time what kind of sword it was, and some concluded that it was a short sword, a "dagger or knife", which they thought would not imply samurai status (see diff 180). It turned out that they were probably wrong and that, according to RS, the term sayamaki used in historical records could refer to a type of tachi (a long sword) as well as a tantō (a short sword). But it took time and long discussions. This relates both to the attempts to remove CNN and other NEWSORG sources perceived as too derivative of Lockley's research, and to the issue of what counts as "original research" raised by Rotary Engine and analysed here below. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: With regards to AGEMATTERS: what sort of clarification would you be looking for? For mine, a confirmation that editors are permitted to discuss sources in context of WP:RS & other applicable policies. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yvan Part, re I'd also like the arbitrators to consider making WP:HISTRS a policy as this could have helped in solving this particular dispute I'm afraid that the arbitrators cannot make policy, but apart from this, I don't agree. Maybe it would be a good idea to make WP:HISTRS a policy - it's definitely a good essay - but it wouldn't have made any difference to Yasuke. WP:HISTRS doesn't say that non-scholarly sources are not reliable, but that scholarly sources should be preferred to non-scholarly sources. Nobody disagrees with this. The point is that for Yasuke, scholarly and non-scholarly sources do not contradict each other (re samurai status); when there was a contradiction, scholarly sources always prevailed (see e.g. this thread). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain if threaded discussion is allowed, but wish to note that scholarly sources should be preferred, even where there is no contradiction. Rotary Engine ^talk 13:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Tinynanorobots removed NEWSORG sources because they thought they were of poor quality and therefore did not deserve to be included in the article. However, removing sources that have not been falsified by better (academic) sources may come across as disruptive. It is not at all obvious that WP readers are more interested in academic sources, which are often not freely accessible and devote only a few lines to Yasuke, than in NEWSORG sources, which are easily accessible and provide a more lively and comprehensive account of Yasuke's life, legacy and controversies. In the face of reasoned objections from two editors, TR should have stopped removing these sources. They became very involved in the matter - making their case on the talk page and starting a thread at RSN, which is good in itself, but they shouldn't have continued to remove the sources - especially without providing an edit summary (diff 37) or with a misleading edit summary (diff 38).

To be honest, I don't think these were very serious violations in the grand scheme of things, and I'd like to point to this edit by TR on the German Wikipedia, adding "Historians recognise him as the first known foreign "samurai"" to the lead: TR had no ulterior motives, and AGF is easy in their case. Still, they did turn up the heat (and bludgeoning) on pages that really did not need any more of it.

So, to clarify the issue, I'd suggest that Arbs make a statement of principle to the effect that while scholarly sources are often preferable on historical topics, there is no policy-based reason for removing newsorg sources that have not been contradicted. I don't know if this is within ArbCom's remit, but if it is, it might be instructive and helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Looking over these edits, one thing that strikes me is that the initial rationale for the removals seems to have been pretty clearly focused on disagreeing with what the sources said. See eg. [19] (Gitz' evidence) - describing CNN, considered a high-quality source on WP:RSP, as unreliable is eyebrow-raising in the first place, but part of Tinynanorobots' rationale for this is that in this case it treats Lockley´s novel as historical. That question - what to do with sources that cite Lockley - was one of the ones settled in the RFC, so this is more edit-warring against the RFC's conclusion. Additionally, while Tinynanorobots argues that they were replacing the sources with better ones, this isn't really supported by their edits; obviously, the focus on this controversy is recent, so it's reasonable that news organizations would come up as WP:SECONDARY sources. Yet Tinynanorobots was trying to replace them with Brittanica, a WP:TERTIARY source.[23] (Gitz' evidence again) And while their objection to CNN was that they cited Lockley, the Brittanica article in question was written by, yes, Lockley. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tinynanorobots' objection to CNN here was based on their conclusion that Yasuke was a samurai, and not who they cited or their status as a news organization, especially given that Tinynanorobots was also disputing that core conclusion of the RFC on talk.[348] (my evidence.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding, as someone who works almost exclusively with foreign-language matters, that the policy states that English-language sources are preferred when they are available and of equal quality. As someone who has spent considerable time in newsrooms, I assure anyone who may care that a piece by CNN Travel would be considered filler material, something to fit around the advertising. It is almost certainly a rewrite of the Ubisoft press kit, most likely by an intern. Nobody at CNN Travel spent any time at all pondering the finer hierarchical points of feudal Japan. While CNN Travel does check the boxes as an RS and is certainly not manipulating any information, I consider it infotainment, much more superficial than CNN proper on for example American politics. AGEMATTERS is more interesting as a question. As in most things, it all depends. This is absolutely true in science and technology, and may well be true in history, depending on such events as new access to certain archives or the discovery of new sources. The idea that sources that are not in English should be rejected arises quite frequently and in my experience is invariably ultimately rejected at the noticeboards. Perhaps the policy should be rewritten to clarify this point. Elinruby (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article was written in 2019 and isn’t based on an Ubisoft press release. I think reading it carefully and comparing it with the Britannica article goes a long way to explaining the problem with the CNN article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666: I followed at least some of the iterations of the sword discussion. I may get back to that later. @Tinynanorobots: you may well be right and I will. However, and I have reality-checked this with with a couple of past and present newsroom denizens of my acquaintance, it is absolutely filler material to which not much thought would have been given. I strongly doubt that any research at all went into the point for which it is being used as a reference. Elinruby (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I myself consider it more urgent to consider more emphasis on the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with non-English sources, since I see that one so much, but that might be a sampling error due to what I edit. I just took a look at AGEMATTERS though and and think it could be improved by adding more examples. The caveats about science and technology could be more emphatic, and perhaps a complete deprecation in medicine. I can't imagine a use case for a 20-year-old rarely-cited journal article that isn't in fact historical, and to a lesser extent this is true in most of science and technology, depending perhaps on the obscurity of the topic.

Obscure topics are also potentially an exception when it comes to history. Some of the sources in Regency of Algiers are truly ancient travelogues from the period, and I do not think that the editors there were wrong to add them; the best sources are probably in Arabic. It is material what the colonizers thought of the culture, even those thoughts came a little after the period in question. But such sources, especially the American ones from the Barbary War period, reek of disdain for the otherized and it is difficult (but necessary) when citing them, or even when using secondary sources that cite them, to keep this from creeping into Wikivoice. French and British writers also tend to drip with exceptionalism.

The same is true of articles about Native American or First Nations history. For a long time the article body of our article on Canadian residential schools began with a blockquote containing the word "savage" and although I don't think most people read it this way -- I certainly didn't -- this was vigorously defended with the rationale that it showed that the government of Canada at the time was racist. In an article about an admitted genocide, it would seem to me to be a given that racism and prejudice would be involved. I think someone finally managed to fix that.

These too are culture wars, although not what is usually meant in the US by the term, which seems to be a dismissive label applied by the right to any sentiment that might make an affluent straight white male feel uncomfortable.

Age also matters in the decolonization of history in such places as DR Congo, where King Leopold's Ghost truly upset some Belgian bien-pensants, and in the clash of historical narratives in Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine, where until quite recently history relied on Soviet narratives. Often more recent historians in each country are attempting a more inclusive and less partisan approach. Even in France, where generally the Gaullist slash Hollywood triumphalism over the French Resistance in recent scholarship has been enriched by a social history of what, for example, people did to get food and what Vichy did not do to stop its citizens from starving. I realize that there isn't a concrete proposal here but I hope these suggested examples are useful. Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Rotary Engine's Policy misinterpretation

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Two points:

editors argue that assessing reliability of sources on Talk pages is prohibited original research. Indeed, this has been a key point of contention. Based on their interpretations of primary sources (Portuguese and Japanese diaries, letters and chronicles from the 16th and 17th centuries), some editors have argued that the secondary sources are wrong in describing Yasuke as a samurai and in other details. As a result, the length of talk page discussions has increased enormously. Thoroughness may come from a sincere desire for accuracy, but the question remains whether such in-depth analysis of primary sources is appropriate for Wikipedia. It has many drawbacks. Editors who don't speak Japanese are sidelined and must rely on the interpretations of other users, and most importantly, I'm not at all convinced that it ensures accuracy. In my experience, editors (including myself) call this kind of source analysis "original research" and consider it inappropriate. However, as RE points out, WP:OR states that "This policy does not apply to talk pages". This creates some uncertainty. My view is stated in diff 352 provided by RE. Please also note diffs 353 (Slatersteven) and 354 (Aquillion).
editors [ignore] the plurality of sources which are silent or inconclusive, providing this diff. As I understand it, historians' views of Yasuke changed significantly in 2009 with the publication of a book by Hiraku Kaneko, which contains a quotation from an unpublished version of the Shinchō Kōki: Nobunaga gave Yasuke a stipend, a house, and a sword. So, as far as his status is concerned, we probably shouldn't consider pre-2009 academic sources per WP:AGEMATTERS. Anyway, after two RfCs, we can set this matter aside for the time being, at least until new sources are published (incidentally, one of the post-2009 sources that RE cites as "silent or inconclusive" actually refers to Yasuke a samurai: Martin J. Meyer, Wrestling, Warships and Nationalism in Japanese-American Relations, Martial Arts Studies, 2020). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gitz' #1. Wishing to be succinct, rather than blunt; This policy does not apply to talk pages does not appear to be particularly uncertain. Editors (including myself) call this kind of source analysis "original research" and consider it inappropriate. It would be more than acceptable for editors to either a) provide a substantive refutation; or b) argue that the extent of the analysis is (in their opinion) inappropriate. The issue arises in describing something which is expressly permitted by policy as being prohibited by that policy. Repeatedly misrepresenting policy is disruptive.

While I sympathise with editors who are unable to access sources in other languages, we have, collectively, made the decision that foreign language sources are acceptable. The translations or interpretations of multilingual editors can be confirmed by other editors. To not avail ourselves of their skills would seem wasteful.

Re: Gitz' #2. The concern highlighted by my evidence is not that editors have down weighted sources per policy (e.g. WP:AGE MATTERS), but that they have rejected consideration of sources which do not support a view (or its direct antithesis) out of hand. This rejection is contrary to policy.

Concur, however, that we should consider WP:AGEMATTERS (which has an interesting application to bubbles of recentism). But we should also consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (including: field of study for academic sources; eschewing "passing mentions"), WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:BESTSOURCES, and WP:HISTRS.

(The thought that ... historians' views of Yasuke changed significantly in 2009 with the publication of a book by Hiraku Kaneko ... is interesting, and worth discussing on the article Talk page, where it was raised previously. See: [3] (in SR's evidence), [4] (afaiaa: not in evidence). Evidence that it has been transformational is thin at best.)

(Happy to be corrected on Meyer - one error would not appear to invalidate the core of the argument. Noting also that I would not suggest "Martial Arts Studies" as a source for historical fact; the list of "silent/inconclusive sources" was provided per WP:PARITY.) Rotary Engine ^talk 12:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Analysis of Symphony Regalia’s Evidence Against Tinynanorobots

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I will start by noting the tone SR uses is aggressive and over the top. His use of the word "obsessed" for example, borders on being uncivil. Second, his evidence doesn’t back up his statements, in fact they contradict it. I don’t understand how these diffs are disruptive or against the RfC?[211][210][209] In this one,[208] I am arguing against the citing of normal source criticism as a reason for describing the status of Yasuke as disputed. I think the stipend, house and sword bit is probably genuine, but more importantly the experts don’t seem to have serious doubts about it. This one is me trying to add nuance to the discussion by quoting some expert comments.[206] The idea that the word samurai is problematic is backed up by experts

Tinynanorobots is obsessed with the idea that Times, BBC, NYT, CNN, Forbes, The Smithsonian, Britannica, and etc are not reliable sources because they say that Yasuke was a samurai

Where to start? I don’t remember criticizing Forbes, BBC or NYT yet. The BBC isn’t in the article. Does Forbes even have an article on Yasuke? Britannica, I have said, it isn’t perfect, but I have also praised it, and kept trying to put it in the article. The reason I oppose them is that they are news sources, and many are poorly written. This is backed up by Wikipedia policy, guidelines and essays. For example, scholarly sources are preferred, that human interest news might be less reliable and that news is less reliable for technical information. I don’t think this really affects the question of Yasuke´s status. Some of the diffs show me taking a pro-samurai stance.[228][230] Some of these diffs don’t have to do with Yasuke or the news, because they are on the samurai talk page. It appears that SR just added a bunch of random talk posts I made to support overblown claims. I am not sure how either what I am accused of, or what I have actually done, is disruptive or against policy or undermines the RfC.

The "edit war" was mostly about CNN and in all the diffs shown I gave a reason, and gave SR a lot of reasons on the Talk Page. I don’t know what is meant by "justification" here. I reverted SR´s reverts, because I thought I had consensus, for various reasons. I am not sure how those edit summaries are misleading Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Accusations by Aquillion against Tinynanorobots

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The three revert edit war: Aquillion cites as an edit war three edits taking place July 29th, August 2nd and September 14th. Aquillion sees the removal of the word "samurai" as the most important part of these edits. I do not, however, the current version of the article lacks this usage of samurai, and it appears to have a consensus behind it. There was a discussion on it, and although a bit bumpy, it appears that BRD has worked in this case. The last edit undid a change be Aquillion that resulted in this: Subsequently, Nobunaga took him into his service and gave him the name Yasuke. He was granted a sword, a house and a stipend.[8] As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend.[9] So, the same sentence repeated twice. I removed the one that didn’t cite an academic source.

The two time bludgeon: Aquillion cites two examples of me as either bludgeoning or beating a dead horse. The reason appears to be, because I was bringing up arguments that had been made during the RfC. Well, the RfC is unreadable, I have read the whole consensus box, which was unclear, and I tried to read all the comments and votes, but I couldn’t take it. This first diff[[5]] I thought I was arguing against both sides. It had appeared to me that one side was arguing on the basis of "scare quotes" that an author doubted that Yasuke was a samurai and the other side was assuming that any use of the term samurai meant that the author was 100% sure on the question. It is more typical on wikipedia for disagreements to be about word usage. If the RfC had been about if the term retainer or samurai should be used, that would be a lot better. The stakes would have been lower, and it would have been easier to compromise. Samurai may not be the perfect word to describe Yasuke, but many experts believe it is the best one. The consensus says that the Yasuke should be depicted as a samurai without attribution. I didn’t understand wikivoice at the time, and didn’t think that "without attribution" meant wikivoice. My proposal, which tbh I wasn’t satisfied with, was poorly received, and I dropped the issue. I should also note, that through twitter, google groups and youtube, we have a better idea of what experts think about the issue than before. This has somewhat alleviated the issue of assuming the majority view in an understudied subject. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne Apropos your comments on the utility of Tweets as sources - noting that the primary discussion on using Tweets in the context of Yasuke was here (afaiaa: not in evidence). I firmly urged caution in their use. Rotary Engine ^talk 13:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Tinynanorobots: can you clarify what you mean by "through twitter, google groups and youtube, we have a better idea of what experts"? While Twitter and Google Groups can be WP:EXPERTSPS and very rarely reliable secondary sources, they're likely to be of very limited utility in this article. Youtube is a little more complicated and you're more likely to get reliable secondary sourcing there, however it's also likely to be of very limited utility in the article. That's probably why the single usage of Twitter and Youtube in our article, are unrelated to the issue at hand and we don't use Google Groups. If it reassured you, that's fine I guess, but it's not really the responsibility of any editor to reassure other editors with unsuitable sources when our reliable sourcing requirements are met. In other words, it's really something you need to be doing on your own time and space and not trying to change stuff in our article whatever you do or don't find. As always, if you found stuff which concerned you, you were free to try and convince reliable secondary sources to publish based on your finds and if you succeeded this might eventually make its way into our article. But until and unless that happened, we weren't going to be changing our article. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean, is that even if we can’t cite such sources, they can give us an idea of what other academics think. Wikipedia policy is to have an academic bias, but that remains an aspirational goal. It is telling that the article on academic bias also mentions press bias, not realizing the two are often in conflict. It is easy to believe that the news source could get hoodwinked into promoting a fringe theory. In fact they had That is in part the argument against Lockley. Especially because African Samurai... has so many red flags, starting with its title. It is an error to assume that the news sources are double-checking him, or that because academics aren’t forming a mob against him, that he represents the majority opinion. These sources let us know that academics aren't a fan of his book, have mostly ignored him, and that the meaning of samurai is so vague it isn’t worth arguing about. It is not the same as saying Shakespeare was a woman.

This is about more than Yasuke though. There are a bunch of subjects where historians don’t write about or take a position on, because there isn’t enough information. When there is interest on the subject, there is a gap in the market. There is already a bias towards sources with more information and that express more certainty. This is why the process is important.

Granted, we have to work with the best sources we have, but when there are only a few sources, wikipedia policy suggests that it is not notable, however this clashes with pop culture notability. That has already been noted. A new solution to this problem is needed. I think that editors should be more open to expressing scepticism of RS in Talk. And News sources don’t fact-check experts, otherwise archaeologists wouldn’t get away with exaggerating. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Gitz's (Ir)relevance of sanctions applied on other WMF projects

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I understand that editors and admins may be willing to consider actions taken on other WMF projects, but the truth is that they can't fully grasp what happened there - they're not familiar with the rules, procedures and practices of other WMF projects. Standards of behaviour and of administrative action vary greatly from one project to another, and there's no reason to rely on assessments made elsewhere. Moreover, from the point of view of someone whose block log from another project is used in a behavioural dispute, the situation is very similar to WP:ASPERSIONS: unsubstantiated claims that cast a negative light on you, that may be false or biased, but that cannot be effectively countered. To show that one's record is not indicative of anything, one should provide lots of diffs and links to discussions, often in different languages, and long, questionable explanations of past events that no one particularly cares about. For example, my "personal attacks" and "wikiquette violations" on it.wiki were actually quite civil, the sanction for "block evasion" was immediately lifted by the blocking admin as there was no evidence of evasion, which in fact never took place, and my "edit without consensus" was a cross-wiki catastrophe that no one wants to dig up from the grave.

In principle, such matters should be left out of behavioural disputes. Arguably, evidence of misconduct on other projects might be relevant if it directly relates to a pattern of cross-wiki disruption or provides essential context for current disputes on the English Wikipedia, but outside of such cases, introducing evidence of sanctions on other projects involves making unsubstantiated allegations that damage an editor's reputation without providing an adequate opportunity for rebuttal. If it undermines the fairness of the process and disrupts discussions about on-wiki conduct, such behavior should not be allowed. I've drafted a proposed principle along these lines, which I can share in the appropriate section of this workshop if the Arbs are interested. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about sanctions applied on other wikis, as I know little about the topic, but this seems to be the best place to point out that when Gitz said "most notably in this ANI thread, where TR, BRP and others have raised concerns about SR's record on ja.wiki" he was falsely representing my position without evidence. I never expressed concern about SR´s behaviour on the Japanese Wiki. I expressed concern about an IP using making false claims about SR on the English Wiki, which then led to SR accusing me, without evidence, of being canvassed to the Samurai page. I think SR´s actions on the Japanese wiki were the only thing actually addressed on that ANI. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinynanorobots, I may have misinterpreted your intentions. You opened the ANI thread with @14.192.210.103 claimed that @Symphony Regalia was blocked on the Japanese wiki and other types of misbehaviour. The latter denies this. Since SR is indeed blocked on ja.wiki, which is easy to verify, my understanding was that you were complaining about SR and wanted the IP’s accusations to be assessed and eventually acted upon. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that Tinynanorobots has previously posted "Your biggest mistake seems to have been being fair to people you disagree with" (Section "Misc Replies" in evidence). Nevertheless I am still assuming good faith, and I mean that earnestly, so he may have had a reason. Either way, no biggie.

I do also indeed agree that actions on other WMF projects should not be used to unduly disparage users. The procedures and norms do differ drastically. Note the following example concerning JA Wikipedia blocking users who make edits challenging the revisionism of Japanese war crimes, that has gotten so bad it was reported in press.

My situation is similar to the above. A lot of norms that are taken for granted on English Wikipedia are not always present on other language Wikipedias. This is veering toward off-topic for this case, but perhaps WP:HAR can at some point be amended to note that such things should not be used to win content disputes. Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the free-time to be involved in a lengthy capacity, but want to clarify on the subject statement that I raised concerns over Symphony Regalia's sanctions on other projects, that I really haven't. As I stated at the time here Special:Diff/1245282782 If there's an issue to be resolved here, it's not one that I'm bringing up. Just because it's true that Symphony has been blocked before doesn't mean they've done anything warranting sanctions on EN Wikipedia as far as I am aware. What seems to have been lost in the chaos and confusion is that Tinynanorobots was reporting the IP Editor, not Symphony Regalia, and the evidence I gave was substantiating the statements made by the IP Editor that Symphony was blocked. Symphony Regalia clarified afterward that the factual existence of the blocks is not what the IP Editor was lying about, but the conduct the IP Editor was accusing them of was the lie. I did not, and do not, believe that Symphony Regalia or anyone should be sanctioned on Wikipedia just because they've been blocked on a different Wiki outside of clear cross-wiki abuse. As for Tinynanorobot's statement which Symphony brought up, for context, that was a message left on my talkpage Special:Diff/1245833818 after I had said I wasn't going to be involved on Yasuke anymore and occured after the number of edits I made on Talk:Yasuke was used at ANI as evidence of some manner of wrongdoing, as Tiny precedes the statement with I find it a scandal that your effort was used as evidence against you. The biggest mistake Tiny seems to be referencing is the conversations I engaged in that worked toward compromise solutions, if I had not done that, I would have had less edit counts on Talk:Yasuke. Eitherway, the statement is pretty irrelevant to the subject of Off-Wiki Activity.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You improperly mentioned them, and were reprimanded by robertsky for doing so. If this is intended as a manner of apology or a clarification of intent though, then sincerely thanks. I appreciate it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a clarification of intent and an apology, yes. That said, I am unsure about the charactetization of being asked And so... What's the exact issue here on enwiki that has to be resolved? as being reprimanded, though. If it was intended as a reprimand, I did not take it as such, and it could have been made much clearer that it was, such as "you should not do this". I took it as an inquiry, and answered that there was no issue here on the EnWiki. Had robertsky told me it wasn't acceptable and asked me to strike it, I would have done so. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Analysis of Elinruby's evidence submission

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My evidence submission shows persistent unprovoked aggression by Elinruby towards me, which justifies a one-sided interaction ban to protect my peace of mind and the quality of the discussions I am involved in. Elinruby doesn't look at what I actually do or say, but continues to argue on the basis of their mistaken assumptions about me and my intentions. This leads to many unfounded accusations and serious misunderstandings.

Elinruby's evidence submission provides some good examples. It has little to do with Yasuke but feels like more harassment. For instance, the way they comment this diff with aggressively policing speaks volumes: Jmendez75 had removed "samurai" and added I'm fucking going to [remove samurai]. He wasn't a samurai and anyone who says he was is a liar and a hack with no proof to back it up. I reverted and linked to the recently closed RfC. My revert was not aggressive: it was justified and in line with the RfC outcome. The same applies to this diff, which Elinruby comments with insists.

Regarding my alleged "Pattern of behaviour", Elinruby shares this diff and comments Already covered in lead"?!?. As the diff shows, the content I removed was repeated twice in the lead, the first time in the first paragraph, as I indicated ("she became the first Indian sprinter to win gold at the Universiade"). Elinruby doesn't look at all the good work I did on Dutee Chand on 30-31 August 2024, but looks for "patterns" to validate their perception of who I am. And in doing so, they misunderstand.

Regarding my editing restriction on Imane Khelif, Elinruby questions my compliance by highlighting compliance? in bold. The answer is simple: yes, I have complied. Anyone, including Elinruby, can easily verify this by checking the page history. What's the point of raising unfounded doubts in an ArbCom proceeding?

Regarding "Ukraine for pattern of behaviour", their first diff shows that in September 2023 my tban from the Russo-Ukrainian topic area was lifted and that I told Callanecc I will avoid general editing of the area. Elinruby then shares 20 diffs to prove that I did not keep my word. By my reckoning, I've made about 1500 edits since the tban was lifted: compared to my previous level of involvement, 20 edits is nothing. I don't even check my watchlist anymore. And none of the diffs they shared prove any misconduct.

If there is anything that seems worthy of discussion in the other diffs shared by Elinruby, please ask. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Loki's whether Gitz violated a topic ban, note that I have not violated any topic bans. My tban has been lifted. The whole point of lifting a tban is to allow the editor to edit the topic area. In fact, Callanecc "suggested" that I avoid "general editing of the area", which I claim to have done - 20 diffs in over a year is nothing compared to my previous involvement. They also warned me that if my edits to the topic are problematic, "in the future a TBAN will be applied fairly automatically" - none of my edits have been problematic so far, apparently, and so the tban has not been restored. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't believe I was in any way disloyal to Callanecc (who applied and lifted the tban from Russia/Ukraine) and to Valereee (who applied the block/editing restriction on Imane Khelif). However, I agree with Loki that all this has little to do with the matter of this case. No one, except Elinruby and Tinynanorobots, has raised any issues with my editing at Yasuke and related pages. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Jillian Schwartz [6] and Magdelín Martínez [7], submitted by Elinruby as evidence and mentioned below in Analysis of Gitz6666's "Reply to GhostOfDanGurney", were made by mistake. I may have misread "Cuban-born female" as "Cuban born-female". Today I have self-reverted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby attributes to me two "ideas": that 1) Ukrainians are somehow responsible for the fact that there is/has been fighting at the nuclear power plant and 2) that Ukrainians were using care home residents as human shields, therefore it is their fault that the Russians shelled the place. They rightly comment that these ideas are controversial and outrageous. But they are not my ideas, and Elinruby is again misrepresenting my views and editing.

Since Ukraine has been invaded by Russia, only an idiot could argue that the Ukrainians are somehow responsible for the fact that there's been fighting at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. I argued, however, that the March 2022 Russian attack to Zaporizhzhia cannot be described as a "war crime" because the war crime allegation was made in a tweet from the US embassy in Kyiv, which was later disavowed by the US State Department and by the Pentagon, as well as by a legal expert from the Lieber Institute at West Point. I also noted that the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which is now controlled by Russia, has been attacked again in April 2024, and while the Ukrainian side denies responsibility, the Russian allegations of a Ukrainian attack have been reported by many RS [8]. So I proposed to either update or remove the section "Attacks on nuclear plants" from the article War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine [9], and when I removed it [10] my edit went unchallenged.
The Stara Krasnianka care house attack has been described as a war crime committed by pro-Russian separatists both by the Ukrainian side and by independent RS. In my opinion, it's quite likely a Russian war crime. However, a report of the OHCHR complained that the Ukrainian army had set up a firing position at the care house without first unevacuating the residents, and described the incident as "emblematic" of its concerns about placement of military objectives near civilian objects and the use of human shields. Before I edited it, the dedicated article reported that The OHCHR published a report which didn't find "that Russia committed any war crimes". This is false. As I said, it's quite likely that Russia committed a war crime, and the OHCHR did not say anything to the contrary. So I modified the lead and provided a more accurate description of the events, as reported by RS; I also added that the evacuation of the residents was reportedly impossible due to mining [11]. I also insisted that the incident should be categorised both as a Russian and a Ukrainian war crime [12][13]. This was challenged and it was agreed that, due to the many uncertainties, the incident should not be categorised either as a Russian or a Ukrainian war crime, but only as "War crimes during the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Elinruby's I am going to need to see some details of this alleged harassment ... You work on justifying your claim that I am harassing you. Try to find some that weren't at ANI with diffs hmm? I think my evidence submission and your behaviour in this case provide sufficient evidence of harassment. I've also noticed that you've made disparaging comments about me in discussions I'm not involved in, such as Jargo Nautilus's talk (In the past I have been somewhat sympathetic, believing him sincerely confused, perhaps due to party membership. I now question this [14]) and more recently on HJ Mitchell's talk (I don't trust myself to discuss Gitz. He is, yes, polite. Anything else I would have to say about him would require diffs [15]). (Redacted) I understand that a one-way IBAN would prevent you from commenting on me anywhere on WP, which is really important to me. What you don't understand is that you systematically misunderstand what I say. At first, two years ago, I got angry, but now I'm just worried. I'm not even interested in undestanding why this is happening, I've never been particularly hostile to you, but I want it to stop. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Gitz6666 has a funny way of using language if their "I will avoid general editing of the area" and 20 edits in the area are reconcilable. TarnishedPath^talk 11:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what does this have to do with Yasuke? What does any of this have to do with Yasuke? I know the case is not named "Yasuke" but that's ultimately why we're all here, not whether Gitz violated a topic ban about an existing contentious topic that has nothing to do with this case. Loki (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that question was for myself, which I'm unsure of because of the lack of nesting, please refer to my response below in the Analysis of Gitz6666's "Reply to GhostOfDanGurney section. TarnishedPath^talk 06:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re persistent unprovoked aggression by Elinruby towards me, which justifies a one-sided interaction ban to protect my peace of mind and the quality of the discussions I am involved in. ROFL. Moving unanswered material here from talk page: So seriously now Gitz, I am going to need to see some details of this alleged harassment. Here's an editor interaction analyser to get you started. I hadn't even thought about you much in a couple years until I noticed the Imane Khelif thread and commented about you diagnosing her based on Italian media reports. Whereupon you got mad and busted into a conversation on my talk page demanding a one-way interaction ban. I think you are confused...You work on justifying your claim that I am harassing you. Try to find some that weren't at ANI with diffs hmm? and Also, can we please ask Gitz to clarify why in the world he would feel entitled to a one-way interaction ban? On another note, with respect to Elinruby doesn't look at all the good work I did on Dutee Chand on 30-31 August 2024, but looks for "patterns" to validate their perception of who I am Moving this question here from the talk page where it was ignored: He points to some "good work" that he says I omitted... Does he mean the part where he created a new section to make certain that the "hyperandrogenism" allegations were included? }} Yeah Gitz, that does look of a type with Imane Khelif to me. Thank you for submitting that in your "evidence" against me. Elinruby (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re No one, except Elinruby and Tinynanorobots, has raised any issues with my editing at Yasuke and related pages. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC): Yvan Part appears to have an issue here: Gitz presented my lack of challenge of this diff[21] as evidence of povpushing but I consider that the problem had been resolved 3 weeks earlier after some hard earned edits, most of which should not have needed 2 days of discussions to go through.[22][23][24][25]. I was not searching on this particular issue when I came across that so there is probably more. I am prioritizing commenting on policy right now, but I *will* say that the ideas that 1) Ukrainians are somehow responsible for the fact that there is/has been fighting at the nuclear power plant and 2) that Ukrainians were using care home residents as human shields, therefore it is their fault that the Russians shelled the place, don't *begin* to not be controversial nor any less outrageous than when they were originally dragged through the noticeboards Elinruby (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with Yasuke? Or the topic of this case? Why are you bringing up every dispute you have ever had with Gitz? Loki (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually am not bringing up every dispute you have ever had with Gitz? I will answer the baseless accusations if I have the opportunity. For the brief time I have left I choose not to be derailed from the policy discussion. Let's keep to mudslinging on the talk page where it moved to. Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

summarizing one aspect of a lengthy talk page discussion: Gender would appear to fall under topic question #2 left by the arbitrators. I don't think we have an answer on the rest of the scope questions. I am gathering that relevance of new evidence should should be pretty clearly demonstrated as context for existing evidence. Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While cultural differences always need to be considered, I find the argument that Japanese academics would be unwilling to dispute a claim they feel is not supported by the evidence highly questionable since it basically means they cannot function in academia. I also find it questionable considering the nonsense that is published about Comfort women, Japanese war crimes, Nanjing Massacre (e.g. Nanjing Massacre denial), Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform etc. (Not all of this comes from Japanese academia although some does but in any case the claim was presented as something common in Japanese culture rather than Japanese academia culture and plenty of it definitely comes from Japanese nationalists.) Ultimately though if plenty of sources say A was an X, and no source says either A was not an X or at least A was Y (which means whether stated or not that they were definitely not X) then there's nothing we can do. Per WP:RGW there's only a limited amount we can do about WP:Systemic bias if there are no sources to support something because of such systemic bias. Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: conceivably you are right, but I am uncertain. It may be important that the examples in the text for the four-semester class sequence were all in a business context. I did have a reference though; let me see if I can put my hand on it. I myself found it plausible since French also does this: "we agree on the principle" means I that I strongly disagree with the details and/or implementation. And yes before you point that out, I do realize that this is a completely different language and the analogy may not apply. The French certainly do however participate in academia. O. The third hand I absolutely do not claim expertise in Japanese culture. Merely having once studied the language in a modest way. 04:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: these look on point:

[16]
[17]
Conflict resolution styles among COLLECTIVIST cultures: a comparison between Japanese and Koreans
Avoidance brings Japanese employees what they care about in conflict management: Its functionality and “good member” image Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...are you really trying to claim that the reason there are zero papers of any kind claiming a thing is that the people of the country it's set in are too non-confrontational to doubt it in print?

This is astounding levels of WP:OR, I have to say. And pretty emblematic of the sort of bizarre stretching used to avoid the obvious conclusion that academics say Yasuke was a samurai, and therefore he was a samurai. Loki (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to saying he was a samurai because he had a residence? I don't see many sources for that either, Loki. I am suggesting that perhaps maybe the burden of proof is on the person who wants the material included. At the moment I am actually inclined to think that there shouldn't be an article at all if we can't find an academic article to support this stuff. I have four journal articles that support the suggestion that this may be a factor, two on social grounds and two on linguistic. None of them about this controversy of course. I am thinking of the Japanese historians saying there is not enough evidence for them (or anyone else?) to express an opinion. I don't think I know enough about the culture to assert that this is the case. But well-cited sources indicate that it could be. And my sourcing isn't TIME magazine, shrug. It isn't OR if you can cite it, Loki. Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

d

Analysis of Gitz6666's "Reply to GhostOfDanGurney"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I feel that if I was in your position, and I had been pblocked for something I thought was harmless but was in reality a violation (this pblock coming after multiple users had told me it was a violation, then later being told that I was bludgeoning the discussions by a closer (both as demonstrated in my evidence)), that maybe I should admit I was wrong and ask either the blocking admin or the user that removed the comment initially, to strike the comment. I'd like to think that if Valereeee was so willing to lift the pblock for a pledge to Just Don't Edit(tm), that it'd also have been lifted if you had said more or less "Hey I realize my mistake can you please strike the comment or allow me to?" Instead, you give the optics of someone digging in their heels. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the topic is gender: there are also the two somewhat bizarre edits subsequent to that that I noted in my evidence [linked as "Language issue?" and "Another"] where... I am forced to try to diagnose here..."American-born female (athlete)" gets "female" removed because it might otherwise be read as "born female" and there is no indication that this is a question (!) except that we are bringing it up in an edit summary for some reason. This is not a reading it would have occurred to me to worry about. No it isn't Imane Khelif so it is not a violation of his voluntary restriction. But it is extremely adjacent and a very very weird reading of a phrase that is not at all unusual in English. Elinruby (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what does this have to do with Yasuke? Imane Khelif is not Yasuke and is not even possibly covered by the contentious topic that may or may not be established by this case. Gitz's behavior over there is, therefore, 0% relevant to this case. This is a topic for ANI not ArbCom. Loki (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Gitz6666 is showing the same IDHT/bludgeoning issues at Yasuke that occurred at Imane Khelif, then it is 100% relevant. Furthermore, if this case is to be assumed to be "Gamergate 2", then GENSEX-related disruptive editing should be considered by the arbs, especially after the sanction was already submitted into evidence by another user. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This case is about "Backlash to diversity and inclusion" which I daresay makes all editor behaviour at Imane Khelif, and its talk page, in scope. TarnishedPath^talk 06:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case name is bad, it's really about the dispute over the page Yasuke and a possible CTOP relating to the video game aspects of Gamergate. It is not about "backlash to diversity and inclusion" generally. Imane Khelif is covered by WP:GENSEX already and is therefore out of scope for this case. Loki (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's up to you or I to make that determination, to be fair. There were two weeks between after I submitted and when the evidence phase closed for the arbs to hat and discard my evidence, but that didn't happen so I'm assuming it's fair game. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the scope statement includes specifically includes gender. Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The level of acrimony and name-calling at Yasuke

I would like to amplify something J2UDY7r00CRjH wrote: I did not like this type of accusatory language that was used here elsewhere in talk page, equating people who want to include a line saying some historians say there is not enough information to determine if Yasuke was a samurai with vandals and culture warriors....I did not want to simply not include it just to be nice because if the conduct of editors is being investigated I do not believe I should ignore what I felt to be improper conduct on some level, without regard to if this conduct is something that should be investigated by the arbitration committee, which again I leave to the committee to decide. This has been an overarching problem with the Yasuke article. I am not going to try to point to root causes but more than one editor has strayed well out of AGF. I myself have not noted "culture war" behavior, although the construct as used in the United States is in my opinion fallacious, so possibly this is why. However. We are in the article about Yasuke the historical figure. And again, why are we trying to cover the video game there? It is certainly DUE for a mention in some sort of popular culture section, but...the anime series has its own article. Surely, if there is enough material to supercede historical discussions by historians of the historical figure, there is surely enough to justify a separate article. And although editors I respect, not all of them parties here, have been saying that it is racism making people say that Yasuke was not a samurai, I have not seen anyone deny this, only question it. And I actually agree with the statement as written, although not as probably intended. Slavery is racist. That is what the Portuguese did in Africa. He probably *was* a slave when he arrived at least. I do not consider that a derogatory statement about him. Many slaves in history were actually accomplished warriors. Japan at the time was no less racist than anywhere else in the period, and probably did not think much more of Africans than it notoriously did of Europeans. It is however possible that some of this went on in comments on the early versions of the article; for a long time I dismissed this controversy as a ridiculous historical dispute about a video game character, until I realized that the video game material was overwriting the history article. Like the OP, however, to the extent that there has been misbehaviour I am not asking for sanctions necessarily. Some of these editors are very new. One or two less new editors need to be talked to about what is a reliable source and repeating themselves in discussions however, some more sternly than others. It is possible that some of the alleged culture war talk was coming from the IPs who were getting removed from the talk page for arguing with an RfC. This was a missed recruitment opportunity and I doubt that some of them had any idea about the RfC or even what an RfC even is. It is not as though disrupting the level of discourse about the article could not possibly have been an improvement. Elinruby (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, it made made me very sad that BrocadeRiverPoems seems to have concluded that the way to stay out of trouble, ie to not be named as a party, which they seem to equate witb being in trouble, wod bave been to participate less. Apparently this is coming from something said to them or about their edit count at Yasuke. New editors coming to the conclusion that participating in article talk is a bad this is not a sign of a healthy governance system.Elinruby (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that my self-removal from Yasuke is not an attempt to not be named as a party or anything, but mostly because participating in editing Yasuke resulted in harassment directed at myself and other editors (seriously, someone spammed 20+ talk page posts at me one day). The opinion I walked away from AN/I with was that I had got caught up in a corner of Wikipedia that is strongly dysfunctional, as Rsjaffe said at the ANI, and so I have decided to exit that corner. It is a more valuable use of my time to work on improving non-contentious articles and contributing in other meaningful ways than trying to participate in editing Yasuke. I am quite honestly much happier with my time on Wikipedia since I left Yasuke alone.

In terms of they seem to equate witb being in trouble, wod bave been to participate less. Apparently this is coming from something said to them or about their edit count at Yasuke, I was clarifying that a message tinynanorobots included on my talk page (which was entered into evidence by another editor) seemed to indicate that he believed if I had participated less in Talk:Yasuke, I would not have been accused of being a WP:SPA at ANI, where it was pointed out to me that of my edits at the time, 99 of them had been on the Yasuke talk page. To clarify, I do not have a belief that participating in Talk Pages is bad. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it there is anything wrong with talking on talk pages either. You have to do what is best for you, but imho you should not have needed to think that way, ie make that choice, tbat's all. Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talking on the talkpage is a sign of not edit warring, since the nutshell version is Don't use edits to fight with other editors. Disagreements should be resolved through discussion. Especially the important work of translating is good. WP:SPA also isn’t a policy violation. The article seems to suggest the main concern is COI. I don’t know why it is used as an accusation like it is.[[18]] Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPA is not (or shouldn't be) an accusation, but it's common experience that SPA often don't share WP core policies and are are interested in using the encyclopedia to further their agenda. Especially on a "hot page" like Yasuke, the editors' patience can easily wear thin. However, I find that Symphony Regalia has rarely, if ever, been hostile to SPA and other editors, and on most occasions I've appreciated how professional and correct they've behaved. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence against Yvan Part

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've addressed part of the evidence presented by Gitz and Symphony Regalia against me during my own evidence submission. I'd like to address the rest as well as evidence presented by Aquillion now.

Symphony Regalia and Aquillion presented this diff[291 and 298] as evidence of misleading edit summary. This edit summary links to the talkpage section that discusses the majority of the changes made with this edit, the additional text is to indicate changes that were not discussed on the talkpage. My expectation was that other editors would read the linked talkpage discussion first. If editors are expected to summarize whole talkpage discussions along with using links, it seems both redundant and not much of a summary. After a quick glance at the kind of edit summaries used by the majority of editors who have participated to this arbcom case, I can say that nobody is that thorough and this seems like an unrealistic expectation.

Concerning my interactions with Symphony Regalia following my edits on the article Yasuke. Looking back on it, yes, those were not ideal. As I mention somewhat often, I take the time to read and had already noticed problems with Symphonia Regalia's behaviour in the months prior to my own direct interactions with him. This stems from my lack of knowledge on how to handle, I'll say, unobvious disruptive editors. After some reading on how to handle such editors, my later interactions with Symphony Regalia have been more calm and I have tried my best to stir discussions toward content with some mitigated results.

Aquillion presented this diff~~[304]~~ [304] as evidence of WP:DEADHORSE. First, I was not the editor who started the talkpage section. The discussion was still debating the same point that had been debated numerous times on the talkpage after the first RfC closed. Maybe that is just me being extremely naive but I expected people to stop debating over principles and start using reliable sources. This proposition to look for RS was not aimed at a particular group of editors or toward confirming a particular point of view. Even if editors had disagreements, I at least expected collaboration in looking for sources and is the most neutral way I could think of to get everyone to focus on the content.

Symphony Regalia has made this diff[288] the crux of his argument against me. The whole quote reads "Well, I haven't joined the discussion in a while but I did keep reading everything that has been said and quite frankly, strong-arming a "consensus" based on a months old RfC while ignoring every argument that has been added to the discussion since is quite frankly disgusting." He insists that this is evidence that I called the RfC disgusting. It is at best a lack of reading comprehension or at worst intentionally twisting words. Though not ideal, I will admit that much, what is being called disgusting is editors attitude which shows that problems had already been present 4 months ago. As I showed in my own evidence submission, the RfC was contested at the time by editors independently of their opinion on its outcome. Singling this comment out as "intent to violate" the RfC would put the majority of editors who had been active at the time and criticized the RfC, which is the majority of involved editors in this arbcom case, under the same intent to violate the RfC.

If arbitrators wish to ask me additional questions or need precisions, I will answer to the best of my ability. Yvan Part (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think you linked the wrong diffs for my comment. In the diff in question ([[304]) you object to what you feel is a lack of sources, requesting another source review and saying that I do realize it is a difficult task because Yasuke is rarely the main focus of any research paper but I do think the matter will not be laid to rest until we do. But the RFC (Loki's evidence) examined numerous sources at length and laid the matter to rest with an unambiguous conclusion; the RFC isn't required to satisfy you personally. You were aware of the RFC [297] (and disagreed with it at length). You say that you wanted everyone to focus on the content but everyone did focus on the content; in fact, Rotary Engine helpfully added my source dive into evidence, [367]. They, and you, disagree that those sources are sufficient or usable (an argument that I don't think is convincing but which is outside of the scope of an ArbCom case); but the whole point of an RFC is that we don't have to constantly rehash that sort of argument over and over forever. Doing so on talk is WP:BLUDGEON / WP:DEADHORSE behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of the Disruption - Editors disregarding community RfC consensus/Analysis

I want to provide some additional analysis here. The RfC established that "There is a clear consensus that Yasuke should be represented in the article as a Samurai". However as mentioned:

Editors who refuse to accept this, whether intentionally or not, endlessly disrupt and bludgeon talk pages to disregard and/or outright ignore the RfC consensus. This is why Yasuke has repeatedly gone to ANI.
Editors vandalize the article and remove mentions of "samurai" to replace it with lesser terms, derogatory terms, and so on

Point #1 has been a major source of disruption. One of the most common use cases of a RfC is to override a local consensus in violation of global policy. However, if a group of editors also repeatedly disregard or do not respect RfC outcomes, then Wikipedia ceases to function.

The proof that this is happening is noted in the talk page going from 1 in 17 years to 6 in the last 5 months, and in Evidence section Parties intentionally disregarding RfC consensus, and engaging in excessive disruption[19][20]. Why has it seen that growth? It's simple. Editors who do not accept the RfC have dug in their heels and engaged in a protracted disruptive refusal to WP:DTS or accept community consensus. The fact that some of this disruption has been coordinated off-site is alarming. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Blatant Racism and Nationalism

Given that this newer form of anti-DEI backlash concerns culture warriors targeting racial minorities (context by Wired included in Evidence), the problematic amount of blatant racism and nationalism (Evidence) we've seen concerning Yasuke is an illustrative example of how this disrupts Wikipedia and affects culture war targets in practice, and may be helpful to the panel in the discussion of any potential new CI designations. This is a conversation about modern culture wars, but it is also a conversation about racism. Blue Eye Samurai and The Last Samurai not being singled out the way Yasuke has been is an example of this. Among the disruptive racism and nationalism Yasuke has seen, from what I see there have been two reoccuring themes:

Outright racially derogative language on talk pages, as well as actors ignoring reliable sourcing on his samurai status (as well as community consensus).
Nationalist claims that experts should be excluded based on their country of origin, or that opinions matter less based on the background of the person saying it.

Racism and nationalism are very disruptive to the mission of building an encyclopedia (and unusual amount of disruption against consensus is an example of this). My evidence provided a lot of examples, and for the convenience of the arbitrators who may not have time to view every diff, I am highlighting some additional ones for analysis (diffs in Evidence):

As a Japanese, we feel that our history is getting falsified by foreign delusional Yasuke fans who just want a samurai title for a part of some BLM movement or something[21]
The Japanese People and Society do not wish to have it's people, history, culture, and understandings to be sullied over western social political agendas, which mar the understanding of who were were, and what we are today[22]
"This is the true nature of white people. White people believe that they are righteous people. White people compromise and recognize black people as human beings. And they think that yellow people are racially inferior"[23]
If you wanna state Yasuke as a samurai, please provide some valid Japanese sources not western media[24]
I am Japanese and I am opposing this history falsification by secondary sources from western people[25]
If western people wants to claim Yasuke as samurai historically, they need to provide valid proofs backed by Japanese sources[26]
Majority of Japanese are really mad at this history falsification and cultural appropriation by the "so-called politically correct westerners". Our history is not westerner's politics nor tools for black lives matter.[27]
As a Japanese, I feel a great threat to our culture and history by foreigners who try to falsify our culture and history[28]
Western media do NOT define our culture/history.[29]
Many Japanese feel that foreigners are trying to falsifying our history and culture[30]
As a Japanese, I am opposing that you decide our history based on the votes[31]
I am Japanese (of Shiwaku descent), and I am also a historian on Japanese Warfare culture. Your problem is with The Japanese that aim to correct this grave inaccuracy that an editor ERRONEOUSLY CLAIMS of Yasuke.[32]
This topic does NOT need semi-protection, nor ANY protection (unless it's from the revisionist of my land's history.[33]
Revising historical accounts in this way is irresponsible and does great damage to the Japanese people and history[34]
who is changing it and why? a troll? Ubisoft to try and get money for the game? or someone who thinks this edit and calling Yasuke a samurai will some how stop racism?[35]
But with this coinciding with the game coming out. could it be trolls or Ubisoft itself? could it be Critical theorists or racists?[36]
I can understand people railing against "leftists" or DEI and ESG[37]
Maybe the people skeptical of DEI and ESG may be off base but i can understand where they come from. surely you all can too.[38]
White people rewriting history again. Why not ask Japanese history experts?[39]
they don't care about what japanese people could think of this, they only care about pandering and DEI karma.[40]

I will note that this excludes main space racism and nationalism. Some of those diffs are available here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ongoing BLP Violations

As an analysis of ongoing BLP violations (Evidence) in this area, I want to note that what I've seen has been particularly malicious. They center around Thomas Lockley, who is a historian that has been harassed by Gamergate for his stance that Yasuke was a samurai. Most of the claims trace back to anonymous X accounts and are false/unverifiable. They also target Sweet Baby Inc employees.

However, it is hard for me to believe that Lockley does not have willful intent to deceive given his deeds exposed[41]
Thomas Lockley is still cited after he was exposed to use his own Wiki account to edit articles citing his own fictional books[42]
I personally do not understand why people insist on using Lockley even after he has been exposed for fabricating the Wiki page, and deleting his social media presence to cover things up.[43]
He is also disputing Lockley’s credibility, who has deleted his social media, is being investigated by Nihon University, and is accused of fabricating an entire NHK program[44]
Lockley is NOT a reliable source. His book hinges on several speculations. He has been found guilty of lying about lack of involvement in Ubisoft.[45]
English-based historical embellishment disguised as ‘non-fiction,’ taking roughly 13 sentences of primary source material, made "research-based assumptions" then ended up with a 480-page book (Lockley)[46]
Lockley wrote a paper based on his fabricated Wikipedia entry, and used it as a credit to get a job at Nihon University's Faculty of Law[47]
This is a sentiment that is shared among the Japanese online community too, that there is potentially historical revisionism going on overseas due to the machinations of Lockley.[48]
Lockley fabricated lots of things with his imaginations without any historical backing and circumstances.[49]
Lockley’s book is riddled with fictional narrative & embellishment[50]
I'm not sure one of the sources that show that sweet baby ink was harassed is showing what it says it does. it's all alleged. and it's Amanda Marquette even then the fact is that an employee of Sweet Baby Incorporated harassed a steam curator and tried to flag their personal account that was targeted[51]

Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Samurai" in lede fails verification

The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a symptom of where we are that I feel the need to begin by saying that I do not say that Yasuke was not a samurai, nor have I heard anyone else do so. I do question it quite strongly however, depending on how the word is defined. There seems to be little doubt that he was capable of fighting and probably did. Did he meet all of the criteria of the very precise later criteria? I agree with someone who was getting endlessly reverted on the talk page, who maintained that he could not possibly have mastered the usual martial arts in a matter of months. This does not mean that he would not have been formidable, possibly even heroic; certainly a worthy protagonist for a legend, an anime series or a video game. But we are in a history article.

Maybe I have spent too long in very contentious articles and I am a reference snob. Maybe this is how the rest of Wikipedia is referenced. But these sources seem inadequate to me for a disputed history about a member of an iconic class of a very specific and traditional culture.

What if Yosemite Sam were portrayed as an important law enforcement figure in the American West? Granted that that is a redutio ad absurdum, and maybe this is not quite that, but I think some of the people who are getting upset may have a point. I have not verified all of Symphony Regalia's diffs. I simply have not had time. If accurate his descriptions say that they contain things that I cannot excuse however. But this diff, of which he complains, shows someone who seems to have pretty much pretty much the same issues I do with that reference stack in the lede.

The reliable sources policy says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

The original research policy says Wikipedia articles must not contain original research...such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources... you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented.

Yet here we have an article that says "Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a samurai" based on:

a bundled reference named "academic" containing a) Encyclopedia Brittannica, which is ok, RS, but I personally would never use it. I have not used EB as a source since middle school. b) Atkins, which does appear academic. This says his lord gave him a sword and he was a bushi. The word "samurai" does appear, but in scare quotes, as "African samurai". Does not support the use of samurai in wikivoice. c) Lopez, which also appears to be academic. Says he was "granted the rank of samurai", not that that he earned it, and in fact *was* a samurai. Would be a good source in a controversies section. I am ambivalent about whether this supports the use of "samurai" in wikivoice. I think not on the whole. Elton John has been granted the rank of knight, has he not?
Smithsonian magazine, Who Was Yasuke, Japan’s First Black Samurai? (were there others?)

very respectable pop history magazine, geared to an educated consumer audience. Would be completely fine, in fact a very good source, for a background section in an article about the video game. Not an academic source.

Time magazine, The True Story of Yasuke, the Legendary Black Samurai Behind Netflix's New Anime Series. Respectable RS, features article. Not an academic source. Also completely fine as a reference for a background section in an article about the video game.

Yes I know, there was an RfC. I have a little more to say about that. But this is a good stopping place; I want people to have a chance to comment before the deadline. Bear with me here for a minute.

(Later) The RfC: I gather it was well-attended. I also sympathize with community fatigue on the topic. This is, after all, a passionate dispute over the historicity of a video game character. Many people can't fathom why anyone cares. Neither could I until I realized that it was taking place in a history article about a formative period for Japan as we know it, even if it is limited to one very narrow window upon it. But it is contentious because of the ambiguities. Did Yasuke become a samurai when he received a sword? The article lede sourcing says it made him a bushi. Was it the right type of sword? Apparently this was extensively discussed. Does having a place to live make him a samurai or imply that he had servants? "House" does have that connotation with reference to the European gentry and nobility. Is this also true in Japan? Does receiving a bag of coins make him a samurai? Does having servants if he did?

I am with the people who are baffled, but what baffles me is the fierce attachment to the term. There is no shame in being a retainer, or a vassal. He would still be one or the other if he were a samurai. All of these words imply that he fought for his lord. Just as there should not be an article if no sources exist, there should not, it seems to me, be a statement made if no sources exist that comply with the reliable sources policy. While TIME and Smithsonian magazine do seem to be directly on topic, the "academic" bundle appears more marginal. If one of the best sources available say he was a bushi because he received a sword, then receiving a sword would seem not to make him a samurai. Perhaps, since as noted many times, the term is ambiguous, it is simply an oversimplification of a complex reality, and just means "fighter" in this context, but if it is ambiguous why are we using it in an article about any aspect of a defining period in a nation's history? Was everyone involved in the American Revolution a Minuteman? I do know for a fact that the French Resistance does not equal the Free French Forces, and neither is the same thing as the French Communist Party. I'm just saying: if people are organizing off-wiki to try to tell us something, sure, quite possibly they are just trolls with no valid point whatsoever. Or maybe not. It is wrong to revert someone simply because they are arguing with a decision reached by a process that they as yet have not had explained to them. Or so it seems to me.

About that process. It was a non-admin closure of a very contentious question. [52] [53] The closer is now retired with 110 edits, which is many times what he had when he first came to the RfC. This is strange on its face, and I am insinuating nothing, mind you. It is possible that the close was correct and that the account holder was word perfect on our policies. Was he though? This is a question. Rotary Engine at least seems uncertain. [54] On the face of things it seems unlikely that his grasp of the reliable sources policy quoted above was word perfect.

Another question: if comment keeps being removed as "edit warring against consensus" how is consensus being determined?

Sorry to be that editor who is Just Asking Questions. Honest. But it occurs to me, as I look over this case, that maybe step by step this article has slid into trying to determine which sources are correct rather than what the best sources say. And maybe the reason for that is that two irreconcilable standards are being applied about two different things. Yasuke was a person, not a video game character. We do not have an article right now about the video game character. Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal

I ask again, why not have a separate article about the video game? These sources would be fine there. Then have a separate article (or not) about the historic figure. ~~I will expand the source analysis a little more shortly.~~(done) Elinruby (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also zero, exactly zero sources that say I am not Tinkerbell, and yet I never will be no matter how many editors vote that I am. RfCs have their place but issues that people are emotional about might not be part of it. I have seen them enshrine horrors. The trouble is that people want to help but most of them don't read the sources, and the wisdom of the crowds is over-rated. I certainly can understand RfC fatigue however. I am not advocating another one; just raising the possibility that the last one was flawed Elinruby (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There have been two whole RFCs about this [55] [56], that both came to the conclusion that Yasuke should be called a samurai in Wikivoice and no significant controversy should be presented. The logic was that there are zero, exactly zero, sources that even explicitly question whether Yasuke was a samurai, while there are many sources including many academic sources that say he was a samurai. But honestly the logic doesn't even matter here: ArbCom is not the place for content disputes. The important fact for this case is that "Yasuke was a samurai" is the clearly established consensus, and so all the editors who are trying to edit war against that consensus are being disruptive.

(Also: there is a separate article about the video game already. The sources go in the article about the historic figure because they are about the historic figure.) Loki (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Loki has said, we have an article on the video game. We do not and are unlikely to have an article on the character at least until next year because there is very little to say about the character when the game which they are in has not been released. We know very little about them. While there may be debate on how much we should cover the controversy over the character in the article on the historic person, the primary dispute at the moment is over details about the historic person. To be clear, many of the sources predate the the announcement of the character, the game brought discussion over the person being a samurai to the forefront but it was something that was around before the character. Sources discussing the character are of limited use in the article on the person, but sources discussing the person which arose due to the game (or whatever) are potentially useful; the same for any such sources which arose due to some other fictional depiction etc. Sources comparing the fictional depiction to the real person are often of less utility, but it is unlikely we have many such sources at the moment because very little is known about the fictional depiction. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Symphony Regalia's evidence regarding Rotary Engine

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not certain that this section is entirely necessary; the diffs seem unsupportive of the accusations.

Symphony Regalia asserts:

Rotary Engine has, for months, repeatedly soapboxed and bludgeoned talk pages on an issue already settled by RfC consensus, to the point of disruption (emphasis added). Providing 14 unique diffs - 13 link to comments made in 9 distinct discussion sections on Talk:Yasuke; 1 to a discussion on WP:RSN.

Reviewing the RfC referenced in SR's evidence, the consensus is that Yasuke should be represented in the article as a Samurai.[57] None of the diffs evidence disagreement with that consensus.

Of the 14, only 1 touches on whether Yasuke should be represented ... as a samurai; and that in declining to engage in discussion of it.

Neither do the diffs show evidence of the behaviours described at WP:BLUDGEON; there is no evidence of repetitious argument or browbeating. The diffs cover multiple different topics and aspects of the article; and broadly evidence collegial discussion leading to amicable agreement.

Analysis of individual diffs

[58] WP:RSN; I provide a detailed opinion on the reliability of the source being discussed in that section; finally proposing that views unique to that source should be attributed. This is, to my knowledge, my first edit on the topic. This edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[59] T:Yasuke; I open a new discussion topic seeking to clarify the specificity of a referenced source - whether we should be referencing a particular version of an historical document. This edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[60] T:Yasuke; I respond to a comment by BrocadeRiverPoems, thanking them for clarifications, concurring with them that a source is neither supportive nor rejective on the "samurai question". (Other than in an apophatic "left as an exercise for the reader") this edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[61],[62] T:Yasuke; I opine that, per WP:RS/AC, the article should not claim an academic consensus without a directly supporting source. The first opinion is questioned by Relmcheatam; the second diff provides a clarifying response. We reach amicable agreement. This edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[63] T:Yasuke; I provide comment on two sources, opining that they contain material which might be apocryphal. This edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[64] T:Yasuke; In this diff, I provide details on the contents of a Japanese language source. The second half of the diff forms part of the conversation continued in the next two diffs, described below. This edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[65],[66] T:Yasuke; In these two, and the preceding, diffs, TinyNanoRobots & I engage in an amiable and productive discussion on how to best include information about a gift of money, while avoiding WP:SYNTH. These edits do not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[67] T:Yasuke; In this edit, I provide a detailed analysis of 7 sources which had been provided earlier in the discussion. While this analysis finds reason to doubt the reliability of some of the sources, this edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[68] T:Yasuke, In this edit, in a discussion on possible translation errors, I provide details of source content in various languages; identifying a potential disconnect. This edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[69] T:Yasuke, In this edit, I provide analysis of a Japanese language tweet, opining, with explanation, that it is misaligned with the sources. I urge caution on the use of Tweets as referenced sources for article content; as per WP:EXPERTSPS. This edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[70] T:Yasuke, In response to an editor raising a question of date inconsistencies, I concur with their concerns, and suggest finding additional sources. This edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.
[71] T:Yasuke, In reply to another editor's conjecture, I explain why I believe it to be unlikely. This edit does not discuss whether Yasuke should be mentioned as a samurai.

For similar reasons, Rotary Engine's comment is also not true. It is very telling that he is using ArbCom evidence to still debate sources. Accusation made without evidence. I note that my evidence does not "debate sources"; it asserts that editors' approaches to sourcing have been poorly aligned with policy. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for one to explicitly say "I hereby disagree with the consensus" to engage in protracted, long term bludgeoning that is disruptive in light of that consensus. I think many (including myself) applaud that you are enthusiastic about the topic, but Wikipedia is not really the place for months of source reinterpretation on Talk after a closed RfC with a very straight forward conclusion.

I note that my evidence does not "debate sources"

Your evidence does debate sources. The sections Flawed RfC and Misrepresentation of sources make apparent that you personally disagree with the RfC consensus, and that you are still engaging in source reinterpretation at ArbCom of all places. I believe this to be an active example of one of the issues, the refusal to accept the RfC. Symphony Regalia (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: It is not necessary for one to explicitly say "I hereby disagree with the consensus"... I suggest that it is, however, necessary for one to engage with or comment on the substance of the consensus. The diffs provided do not evidence that. Commenting on sources (individual or aggregated) or on specific article content which is not covered by the consensus is not disagreeing with the consensus.

Re: The sections Flawed RfC and Misrepresentation of sources make apparent that you personally disagree with the RfC consensus...

The concerns raised in the "Flawed RfC" section are explicitly regarding the process of the RfC, not its outcome - and not with the sources. In evidence, I assert that the close was flawed, for the reasons provided, all of which deal with process &/or policy alignment. I have not made any prior comment on the close; I have not edited in contravention of the consensus in the close; and there is no evidence of a pattern of behaviour.

I do believe that is inopportune that the RfC was closed by an editor with only 2 previous edits outside their own User: space - a more experienced closer, even had they found the same consensus, might have worded the close differently, preventing some of the subsequent discussion.

I do not assert that an alternative close would have reached a different outcome - other than in the potentiality.

The concerns raised in "Misrepresentation of sources" are that multiple editors have been careless or inaccurate in their descriptions of sources (individually & collectively). I do not "debate sources", but editors' descriptions of them. I also do not assert intentionality or misconduct; but where the inaccuracy is repeated, despite having been corrected, it moves towards disruption.

I do not expect ArbCom to do anything in particular with the evidence in those sections. They might include a principle stressing the importance of alignment with core policy. They might include a principle that RfC closes should be challenged in the appropriate forums. They might include a general caution that sources should be accurately represented in discussions. They might not.

Given that it involves a content dispute, it is unlikely that they will amend or overturn the close - though anything is possible, I guess - and so my evidence in that regard is not re-litigating in the hope of inducing an appellate court to overrule.

Neither is it evidence of a refusal to accept. As above, I have not edited in contravention of the consensus in the close; nor (to my best recollection) made any comment on the close prior to submitting evidence in this Case.

On a personal note, please don't presume to know the contents of other's minds. Rotary Engine ^talk 23:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC) add Rotary Engine ^talk 02:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aquillion's comment, below.

I firstly note that my examination of the reliability of those particular sources was explicitly in response to their being listed in a reflist at the bottom of that same discussion [72]; not to their having previously been listed in an RfC in which I did not participate, and which closed prior to my involvement in the topic area. My examination of those sources is not an extended rebuttal of the RfC, but a response to a comment in what was then a current & open discussion. If this is rehashing the RfC's points, in that new discussion, then it is something of which we are both - along with many other editors - guilty.

We cannot have an expectation that it is acceptable for one editor to "rehash" in an active discussion, but that it is unacceptable for another editor to respond.

And then, to draw a distinction. The assertion in my evidence is not that the source selection in the comment to which I responded is so wrong as to be misconduct; nor that the argument "no sources explicitly dispute X" is misconduct. My assertion is that that particular argument, and the source selection, in aggregate across multiple instances by multiple editors, are not well aligned with our policies & guidelines. That may seem like a distinction without a difference; but for mine, it is not. Not every assertion nor each piece of evidence is an accusation of misconduct. Not every comment here is demanding sanctions.

The Case scope is What breaches of Wikipedia policies have happened over the past year on the Yasuke article and talk page? I am reading that to include not only misconduct & deliberate, intentional breaches, but also other misalignment with policy. If I am incorrect in that regard, Arbs will ignore that evidence. Or they may choose to include a general principle that editors should be cautious in regard to these aspects.

On the question of the RfC's consensus on "sources citing Lockley('s "African Samurai)", the comments in the closing statement, on 30 June, beginning (As the issue at hand...) establish that we should follow WP:V and WP:NPOV. It is not immediately apparent that they explicitly (or implicitly) establish a consensus on the reliability of those derivative sources. I note also the subsequent RSN discussion (initiated by the RfC closer on 2 July; last comment 2 August) which found a consensus that the work from which they derive, "African Samurai", an historical novelisation, was not reliable for statements of fact [73]. My 9 August comment, in part on sources which reference that specific work, was made in light of that preceding RSN discussion - and so was made in circumstances which had been changed by that consensus.

To the extent that the comment presenting the list of sources specifically addressed "sources that relied on Lockley('s African Samurai)", it was only by reference to a book review; which I included in my examination. I should not be faulted for not having encompassed any other arguments which were not made.

Additionally, "derivative sources" (of a non-reliable source) is only one of eight separate concerns which are raised in my analysis.

In the remainder of the discussion section, no editor (including Aquillion & Symphony Regalia) took issue with my comment or suggested that it was inappropriate.

There may be arguments from the RfC repeated over and over and over again, but the evidence provided does not show that they are repeated over and over by me. Rotary Engine ^talk 23:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC) add Rotary Engine ^talk 02:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Since I relied on the fact that Rotary Engine entered the diff ([367]) of my source-dive into evidence above, and since it came up again here, I suppose I should comment here as well. That was part of the RFC; trying to post an extended rebuttal to it after the RFC is closed is obviously rehashing the RFC's points and refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK in general. As far as the content goes, I stand by what I said about it at the time; it is a general demonstration of the fact that Yasuke has been repeatedly and uncontroversially referred to as a samurai in academic coverage, which makes it reasonable to expect the existence of sources directly disputing that fact if we are going to present it as contested. This argument seems to have, broadly speaking, carried the day in the RFC. You can agree or disagree with it or with the sources I used to back it, but to try and argue that it is somehow so wrong as to be misconduct is absurd. (Though, as I said, the decision to continue to try and re-litigate it after the RFC closed[368] certainly is a refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK, which is, in fact, misconduct.) I will also point out that part of Rotary Engine's objection is that I relied on sources that relied on Lockley, something that I specifically addressed in as many words in the comment they linked to; the reliability of sources citing Lockley was also specifically addressed in the RFC's closing statement. (As the issue at hand seems mostly to be an argument over whether Lockley, and the sources citing Lockley, are reliable it is important to consider WP:V.) Again, these are arguments from the RFC repeated over and over and over again. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd like to submit to the arbitrators the closing statement of a recently closed RfC as another example of ongoing behaviour problems I had already described in my preliminary statements surrounding the article Yasuke. Talk:Yasuke#RfC on Yasuke Samurai Status(closed 13 October). I'd also like to submit the disruption that has happened a few times during this very arbcom case as example of "drive-by" disruption which has also happened on the article and its talkpage. As they have been deleted, I'm not sure linking directly to them is appropriate but they have happened on the "Main case page" as well as on the "Evidence" page (3 and 4 October).

As such, I'd like the arbitrators to declare the topic of Yasuke a contentious topic. Whether other articles or related topics require the same, I can only ask other editors to make their case as I am not familiar with other such wikipedia articles enough to evaluate disruption. Yvan Part (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:40B1:DD0F:618D:1858 (talk · contribs). You seem to misunderstand my post. I am not challenging the closure, I agree with the closing editor's assessment on behaviour during that RfC. Namely the extreme WP:BLUDGEONING by regular editors, that uninvolved editors end up as collateral damage despite the fact that RfCs are meant to bring outside point of views on a topic and that it's generally a mess. I have not participated in the RfC myself other than one time to denounce the exact same problems which are also the problems I pointed out during the preliminary statements. Yvan Part (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closing of the RfC was well done, I however see the possibility of future conflict over its meaning. The three issues without consensus, suggest that those topics are open to discussion. The previous RfC was interpreted by some to have settled those issues and forbidden discussing them (see evidence related to going against the consensus). Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have two questions for User:Yvan Part about the statement above

# What specific issues do you have with the close of that RFC?

# Why are those issues not best dealt with via a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE?

Because, as an observer with no real skin in the game, I don't see any real issues with the close. 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:40B1:DD0F:618D:1858 (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke/Workshop

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Example

Proposed principles

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by User:Example 2

Proposed principles

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Analysis of Gitz´s "War on Journalistic Sources"

Analysis of Rotary Engine's Policy misinterpretation

Analysis of Symphony Regalia’s Evidence Against Tinynanorobots

Accusations by Aquillion against Tinynanorobots

Analysis of Gitz's (Ir)relevance of sanctions applied on other WMF projects

Analysis of Elinruby's evidence submission

Analysis of Gitz6666's "Reply to GhostOfDanGurney"

The level of acrimony and name-calling at Yasuke

Analysis of evidence against Yvan Part

Cause of the Disruption - Editors disregarding community RfC consensus/Analysis

Blatant Racism and Nationalism

Ongoing BLP Violations

"Samurai" in lede fails verification

Analysis of Symphony Regalia's evidence regarding Rotary Engine

Template

General discussion